Sore Losers

Late last month, while Democrats were still licking their wounds from the Nov. 5 election, which will return Donald Trump to the White House next month, there was a revealing report about Michigan, where Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has lost her House majority to the GOP beginning in January.

Long story short, Wolverine State Democrats got busy pushing all sorts of gun control ideas, hoping to pass a few before they relinquish total control. Does that sound like sore loser syndrome to you? It does to me.

According to Bridge Michigan and the Detroit Free Press, ideas tossed around included a plan to “ban most firearms in state House and Senate office buildings.” It was the word “most” that got my attention. Turns out the proposal would not have applied to legislators who had state carry permits. Just everyone else. If it weren’t for the double standard, those guys would have no standards at all.

Some people also wanted to ban bump stocks, even though the U.S. Supreme Court back in June ruled the Trump-era ban was unconstitutional, but only because the ATF did it without going through Congress. Michigan Democrats figured to adopt a state-level prohibition.

Another proposal had to do with the creation of a “no-sell” list of firearms. The sponsor, identified as state Sen. Rosemary Bayer, told a reporter, “It’s a suicide prevention bill.”

No, it isn’t. It’s a gun-ban-for-some-people proposal, and she knows it. This scheme would allow people to “opt to put themselves on a temporary or permanent do-not-sell list for firearms.” How nutty is that? Voluntarily putting yourself on a list of people who couldn’t purchase guns is like asking the government to become your babysitter. All these people really need to do is exercise self-control and stay out of gun shops and gun shows. People would remain on the list for up to 180 days.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about all of this is how the newspapers repeatedly referred to these gun control bills as “gun reform.” Constitutional rights do not need reforming.

Biden’s Bad Numbers

While he’s been on the way out of office for nearly six months, Joe Biden isn’t getting any slack or sympathy from U.S. voters who apparently weren’t sorry to see him replaced in something of a palace/party coup by his own vice president. It certainly didn’t work out the way the far left wanted.

Rasmussen, the veteran polling firm whose numbers Insider uses frequently, has been showing Joe’s numbers haven’t been so good for a long while. His daily presidential tracking poll numbers have been hovering below 50% for weeks. People who disapprove of his job performance have been above 50% for the same period. Worse still is the number of people who “strongly approve” of Biden’s job performance. It’s been down around 23-24%, while the number who “strongly disapprove” has been up around 43-46%

Likewise, the overwhelming majority of U.S. voters have been saying the country is on the wrong track. The particular survey to which I refer at the moment is right here. It was running about 60% wrong track to 32% “right direction.”

New York Sued…Again

More than two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Bruen decision that New York State could not deny people a concealed carry license.

But the Empire State continues to deny non-residents carry permits when they visit, so last month, a group of gun rights advocates and advocacy groups got together and filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The group includes the Firearms Policy Coalition plus four private citizens, Matthew Shaffer, Ralph Flynn, Peter Robbins and Charles Pompey, all Pennsylvania residents.

It seems like every Second Amendment organization has sued New York at some point.

Wyoming Campus Carry Nixed

This may seem a little strange to be happening in Wyoming, but recently, the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees voted 6-5 to turn thumbs down on a proposal to let people pack firearms into “most” campus facilities.

According to the Cowboy State Daily, “days of debate” had preceded the vote, which would have allowed people over age 21 to carry on campus, provided they had a permit to carry. Opponents argued it would make the campus less safe.

Adding a little curiosity to this decision is the 2024 report from the World Population Review, which says Wyoming has the second-highest rate of gun ownership of any state in the union. At least 66.2% of Wyoming residents own a gun, the Review says, second only to neighboring Montana, where the rate is 66.3%, which sort of explains the voting results in Big Sky Country last month.

According to the Review, “The United States is ranked number one globally when it comes to gun ownership. Estimates show that there are anywhere from over 200 million to more than 350 million guns in the U.S. Because of variances in regulations throughout the nation, it’s impossible to get exact numbers when it comes to the total number of guns in the nation and the number of guns in each state. However, the Pew Research Center has compiled data that is about as accurate as it gets.” That’s a lot of hardware, and the estimate might be on the light side.

By Contrast

Out in California, the percentage of gun-owning residents is down around 28.3%, which probably explains why the Democrat legislative majority has managed to adopt some of the most Draconian gun controls anywhere in the country.

So, beginning Jan. 1, 2026, gun owners will be required to “keep the firearm securely stored when the firearm is not being carried.  A firearm is securely stored if it is locked by or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or a secure gun safe.”

But wait a minute. Back in June 2008, by a 5-4 decision authored by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in a case known as District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, “We hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” California’s new statute may be unconstitutional unless the state expects every legal gun owner to be carrying a firearm on his or her person every day and night so as to remain within the requirements of the new law.

Expect this new law to attract multiple challenges with plaintiffs arguing it is clearly unconstitutional.

CORRECTION

When I wrote about my pal Brian Lull’s Ruger 22/45 (Huntin’ and Shootin’ Pals, Nov. 21) I said my own MK IV didn’t have a bolt release, which is incorrect. I can’t remember what I was thinking at the time, but it sure didn’t come out right! The MK IV absolutely does have a bolt release. It’s different than the one on the MK III, of course, but it is definitely there. Apologies to Ruger. The column did elicit the following reaction from a reader.

MAILBAG

“I acquired a Ruger Mark II a few years ago that just wouldn’t feed two rounds in a row. I contacted Ruger and sent it to them. This was long after Mark 4s were on the market, but Ruger gladly serviced the pistol.

When I got it back with a list of work done, I was surprised to find Ruger had stripped it down and replaced every spring, pin, and small part, including the firing pin. What I received back was a new gun except for the barrel, bolt and frame and the mainspring housing. It’s never failed to cycle since with any ammunition I used.

Clearly, Ruger knows how to build great .22 pistols and how customer service should work.”

— Scott Morris, Washington State

Dave replies: Scott, I can say my experience with Ruger is that their customer service is second to none. When my MK IV was returned on a recall for an apparent problem they discovered in some guns (I don’t believe mine was one of them), Ruger did a repair and had the pistol frame back to me in a week. I have also gotten reports from other folks about how well they were treated when interacting with Ruger for service. Thanks for reading Insider Online.

Subscribe To American Handgunner